Summary Background A phase 2 trial suggested increased overall survival and increased incidence of treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with ipilimumab 3 mg/kg ...in patients with advanced melanoma. We report a phase 3 trial comparing the benefit–risk profile of ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus 3 mg/kg. Methods This randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done in 87 centres in 21 countries worldwide. Patients with untreated or previously treated unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, without previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system by the permuted block method using block size 4 to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg, administered by intravenous infusion for 90 min every 3 weeks for four doses. Patients were stratified by metastasis stage, previous treatment for metastatic melanoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is completed and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01515189. Findings Between Feb 29, and July 9, 2012, 727 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (365 patients; 364 treated) or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (362 patients; all treated). Median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 4·6–42·3) for the ipilimumab 10 mg/kg group and 11·2 months (4·9–29·4) for the ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group. Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 11·6–17·8) for ipilimumab 10 mg/kg compared with 11·5 months (9·9–13·3) for ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·70–0·99; p=0·04). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (37 10% of 364 patients in the 10 mg/kg group vs 21 6% of 362 patients in the 3 mg/kg group), colitis (19 5% vs nine 2%), increased alanine aminotransferase (12 3% vs two 1%), and hypophysitis (ten 3% vs seven 2%). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 133 (37%) patients in the 10 mg/kg group and 66 (18%) patients in the 3 mg/kg group; four (1%) versus two (<1%) patients died from treatment-related adverse events. Interpretation In patients with advanced melanoma, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg resulted in significantly longer overall survival than did ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, but with increased treatment-related adverse events. Although the treatment landscape for advanced melanoma has changed since this study was initiated, the clinical use of ipilimumab in refractory patients with unmet medical needs could warrant further assessment. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Summary Background There are no established therapies specific for NRAS -mutant melanoma despite the emergence of immunotherapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK inhibitor ...binimetinib versus that of dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS -mutant melanoma. Methods NEMO is an ongoing, randomised, open-label phase 3 study done at 118 hospitals in 26 countries. Patients with advanced, unresectable, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIIC or stage IV NRAS -mutant melanoma who were previously untreated or had progressed on or after previous immunotherapy were randomised (2:1) to receive either binimetinib 45 mg orally twice daily or dacarbazine 1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by stage, performance status, and previous immunotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded central review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one study drug dose and one post-baseline safety assessment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01763164 and with EudraCT, number 2012-003593-51. Findings Between Aug 19, 2013, and April 28, 2015, 402 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 269 to binimetinib and 133 to dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 1·7 months (IQR 1·4–4·1). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·8–3·6) in the binimetinib group and 1·5 months (1·5–1·7) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio 0·62 95% CI 0·47–0·80; one-sided p<0·001). Grade 3–4 adverse events seen in at least 5% of patients the safety population in either group were increased creatine phosphokinase (52 19% of 269 patients in the binimetinib group vs none of 114 in the dacarbazine group), hypertension (20 7% vs two 2%), anaemia (five 2% vs six 5%), and neutropenia (two 1% vs ten 9%). Serious adverse events (all grades) occurred in 91 (34%) patients in the binimetinib group and 25 (22%) patients in the dacarbazine group. Interpretation Binimetinib improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine and was tolerable. Binimetinib might represent a new treatment option for patients with NRAS -mutant melanoma after failure of immunotherapy. Funding Array BioPharma and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
Summary Background Patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma have limited treatment options. Hedgehog pathway signalling is aberrantly activated in around 95% of tumours. We assessed the antitumour ...activity of sonidegib, a Hedgehog signalling inhibitor, in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma. Methods BOLT is an ongoing multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial. Eligible patients had locally advanced basal cell carcinoma not amenable to curative surgery or radiation or metastatic basal cell carcinoma. Patients were randomised via an automated system in a 1:2 ratio to receive 200 mg or 800 mg oral sonidegib daily, stratified by disease, histological subtype, and geographical region. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, assessed in the primary efficacy analysis population (patients with fully assessable locally advanced disease and all those with metastatic disease) with data collected up to 6 months after randomisation of the last patient. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01327053. Findings Between July 20, 2011, and Jan 10, 2013, we enrolled 230 patients, 79 in the 200 mg sonidegib group, and 151 in the 800 mg sonidegib group. Median follow-up was 13·9 months (IQR 10·1–17·3). In the primary efficacy analysis population, 20 (36%, 95% CI 24–50) of 55 patients receiving 200 mg sonidegib and 39 (34%, 25–43) of 116 receiving 800 mg sonidegib achieved an objective response. In the 200 mg sonidegib group, 18 (43%, 95% CI 28–59) patients who achieved an objective response, as assessed by central review, were noted among the 42 with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma and two (15%, 2–45) among the 13 with metastatic disease. In the 800 mg group, 35 (38%, 95% CI 28–48) of 93 patients with locally advanced disease had an objective response, as assessed by central review, as did four (17%, 5–39) of 23 with metastatic disease. Fewer adverse events leading to dose interruptions or reductions (25 32% of 79 patients vs 90 60% of 150) or treatment discontinuation (17 22% vs 54 36%) occurred in patients in the 200 mg group than in the 800 mg group. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were raised creatine kinase (five 6% in the 200 mg group vs 19 13% in the 800 mg group) and lipase concentration (four 5% vs eight 5%). Serious adverse events occurred in 11 (14%) of 79 patients in the 200 mg group and 45 (30%) of 150 patients in the 800 mg group. Interpretation The benefit-to-risk profile of 200 mg sonidegib might offer a new treatment option for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma, a population that is difficult to treat. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
Summary Background Patients with metastatic melanoma, 50% of whose tumours harbour a BRAF mutation, have a poor prognosis. Selumetinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity in patients ...with BRAF -mutant melanoma and in preclinical models when combined with chemotherapy. This study was designed to look for a signal of improved efficacy by comparing the combination of selumetinib and dacarbazine with dacarbazine alone. Methods This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study investigated selumetinib plus dacarbazine versus placebo plus dacarbazine as first-line treatment in patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced BRAF -mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma. Patients were randomly assigned by central interactive voice response system (1:1 ratio, block size four) to take either oral selumetinib (75 mg twice daily in a 21-day cycle) or placebo; all patients received intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day cycle). Patients, investigators, and the study team were masked to the treatment assigned. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00936221. Findings Between July 20, 2009, and April 8, 2010, 91 patients were randomly assigned to receive dacarbazine in combination with selumetinib (n=45) or placebo (n=46). Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups (median 13·9 months, 80% CI 10·2–15·6, in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group and 10·5 months, 9·6–14·7, in the placebo plus dacarbazine group; hazard ratio HR 0·93, 80% CI 0·67–1·28, one-sided p=0·39). However, progression-free survival was significantly improved in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group versus the placebo plus dacarbazine group (HR 0·63, 80% CI 0·47–0·84, one-sided p=0·021), with a median of 5·6 months (80% CI 4·9–5·9) versus 3·0 months (2·8–4·6), respectively. The most frequent adverse events included nausea (28 64% of 44 patients on selumetinib vs 25 56% of 45 on placebo), acneiform dermatitis (23 52% vs one 2%), diarrhoea (21 48% vs 13 29%), vomiting (21 48% vs 15 33%), and peripheral oedema (19 43% vs three 7%). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event was neutropenia (six 14% patients in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group vs four 9% in the placebo plus dacarbazine group). Interpretation Selumetinib plus dacarbazine showed clinical activity in patients with BRAF -mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma, reflected by a significant benefit in progression-free survival compared with placebo plus dacarbazine group, although no significant change in overall survival was noted. The tolerability of this combination was generally consistent with monotherapy safety profiles. Funding AstraZeneca.
Summary Background Dabrafenib, an inhibitor of mutated BRAF, has clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in studies of phase 1 and 2 in patients with BRAFV600 -mutated metastatic melanoma. ...We studied the efficacy of dabrafenib in patients with BRAFV600E -mutated metastatic melanoma. Methods We enrolled patients in this open-label phase 3 trial between Dec 23, 2010, and Sept 1, 2011. This report is based on a data cutoff date of Dec 19, 2011. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, stage IV or unresectable stage III BRAFV600E mutation-positive melanoma were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily, orally) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks). Patients were stratified according to American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (unresectable III+IVM1a+IVM1b vs IVM1c). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and was analysed by intention to treat; safety was assessed per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01227889. Findings Of the 733 patients screened, 250 were randomly assigned to receive either dabrafenib (187 patients) or dacarbazine (63 patients). Median progression-free survival was 5·1 months for dabrafenib and 2·7 months for dacarbazine, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·30 (95% CI 0·18–0·51; p<0·0001). At data cutoff, 107 (57%) patients in the dabrafenib group and 14 (22%) in the dacarbazine group remained on randomised treatment. Treatment-related adverse events (grade 2 or higher) occurred in 100 (53%) of the 187 patients who received dabrafenib and in 26 (44%) of the 59 patients who received dacarbazine. The most common adverse events with dabrafenib were skin-related toxic effects, fever, fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. The most common adverse events with dacarbazine were nausea, vomiting, neutropenia, fatigue, and asthenia. Grade 3–4 adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Interpretation Dabrafenib significantly improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine. Funding GlaxoSmithKline.
